What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

Should states require Voter ID?


  • Total voters
    312

jon_mx

Footballguy
I can't believe that there are many people who think getting an ID to vote is such a huge burden to ask voters to ensure people are legitimate and only vote once.. We have several outspoken opponents to voter ID, but I am wondering what the average poster thinks.

 
4-0....so far about what i expect....voter ID is a losing issue for Dems at the polls, especially when those votes are checked.

 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.

 
Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.

Sad.

 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?
 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?
A person could show a facebook page, or a birth certificate, or a credit card, or a student ID card, or a Costco card, or a casino player's rewards card, or a bar membership card, or a phone bill, or some combination of stuff like that; or a person could sign a written statement under oath identifying himself; or he could make an oral affirmation. Of, if a person happens to be a celebrity such as Carolina Panthers WR Legedu Naanee, he could simply demand: "Don't you know who I am???"
 
Let's look at this way, when we stop allowing Super PAC's to manipulate the rules/loopholes about disclosing who is funneling money through them THEN you can ask for voter ID, and not some Nationalized RFID chip ladened big brother BS either.

It strikes me as effing hilarious that people are putting more energy worrying about voter fraud than worrying about foriegn interests pumping billions of dark money into our political system. You're focusing on the wrong ####### things sheeple!!!

 
Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
Well, except that the Supreme court ruled that to be unconsitutional, whereas they've said voter ID laws are a-ok.
 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
I don't get that sense at all in the other thread. Lots of folks there seem to think it's more than enough for you to take my word for who I am when I walk up to the table. No pictures, no signatures, no problem.
 
Let's look at this way, when we stop allowing Super PAC's to manipulate the rules/loopholes about disclosing who is funneling money through them THEN you can ask for voter ID, and not some Nationalized RFID chip ladened big brother BS either.It strikes me as effing hilarious that people are putting more energy worrying about voter fraud than worrying about foriegn interests pumping billions of dark money into our political system. You're focusing on the wrong ####### things sheeple!!!
What does one have to do with the other? Why must one be solved before the other? They're two totally different issues and can be solved individually without any assistance from, or impact on the other.
 
I've moved about a dozen times and am probably still registered to vote in 6 different districts in town. What stop me from voting 6 times? I am certain lots of people do, just like the idiots who sign a petition a hundred times. Without I'd check there is no way to prove you did anything wrong.

 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.
 
I've moved about a dozen times and am probably still registered to vote in 6 different districts in town. What stop me from voting 6 times? I am certain lots of people do, just like the idiots who sign a petition a hundred times. Without I'd check there is no way to prove you did anything wrong.
Lots of people are driving around to six different districts just to vote?? Seems like too much work to me.
 
'Matthias said:
I've moved about a dozen times and am probably still registered to vote in 6 different districts in town. What stop me from voting 6 times? I am certain lots of people do, just like the idiots who sign a petition a hundred times. Without I'd check there is no way to prove you did anything wrong.
They occasionally cross-check the registration lists, genious. And at least in the states that I live in, they have you sign the log book and match your signature that day against the one they have on file. Lastly, having photo IDs doesn't "prove" that you voted 6 times. It "proves" that 6 people checked someone's ID that matched their face and your name. It could've been fake.
A photo ID is better proof than some chicken scratch. Besides, it is a significant effort to come up with 6 fake realistic ID's. Right now it requires no effort to vote multiple times. The system is a joke and too easy to game.
 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.
In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.
 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.
In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
Everyone understands what the issue is. Too much editorializing is what usually makes polls biased, i tried to keep it as straight-forward as possible.
In the other thread, I'm not sure this is true. There were folks opposed to it because it would "disenfranchise" people and "it would cost 10s of millions of dollars to implement". Neither of those people posted anything that would leave one to believe there was wiggle room. To them, the IDs were a bad idea all around.
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
Just going by what was said. :shrug: The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than that :mellow:
 
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
Just going by what was said. :shrug: The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than that :mellow:
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
 
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
Just going by what was said. :shrug: The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than that :mellow:
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?
 
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
Just going by what was said. :shrug: The FFA seems like a pretty good collection of smart folks. I'd hope that if they were making something up, they could come up with something better than that :mellow:
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to our government officials. I don't think they care if they are legal or illegal as long as they are in their favor.
 
They understand the issue. They were just blowing smoke to cover their real concern, Democrats losing illegal votes.. Yes, it is a political issue, one the Democrats are trapped on the wrong side of.
So you think there are hundreds, thousands of illegal votes cast for the Democrats every election, do you? Laughable. There is one reason and one reason only that the Republicans want this and that is the hope of reducing the Democrat vote. Period.
 
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?
It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.
 
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?
It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.
So it does involve the loss of illegal votes. Glad you're in agreement of that now.
 
There is a political aspect to this issue, but it involves the loss of legal votes, not illegal ones. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that, with the exception of fringe sorts like jon_mx.
Why can't it also be a loss of illegal votes?
It seems pretty apparent to most rational people that the number of legal votes that will not be cast as a result of these laws far exceeds the number of illegal votes. That's why we've spent so much time in this thread discussing whether it's bad when people don't vote because it's too inconvenient.
So it does involve the loss of illegal votes. Glad you're in agreement of that now.
Try to follow along the whole conversation. Jon_mx said that the primary political motivation for Democrats to oppose these laws is to protect voter fraud. It isn't. Not even close. To the extent there is any of this type of voter fraud going on, there isn't any clear indication that it is in support of Democrats rather than Republicans. But what is clear is that people without IDs, who are legally able to vote, predominately vote Democratic. And some of them won't vote if required to show IDs. The Democrats have a motivation to oppose these laws because of those people, not because of a possible small number of fraudulent voters that might just as easily be supporting Republicans.
 
How come we don't require IDs for this vote? What is to keep aliases from voting multiple times? You can't take a vote like this seriously unless and until you have anti-fraud safeguards in place.

 
How come we don't require IDs for this vote? What is to keep aliases from voting multiple times? You can't take a vote like this seriously unless and until you have anti-fraud safeguards in place.
:goodposting:Signed, Bob from Sacramento
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
What is preventing minorities from getting ID?
DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.
Wat?
That explains why only unemployed people have drivers' licenses.
 
Same thing as the "grandfather clause." Another attempt to try and prevent minorities from voting.Sad.
What is preventing minorities from getting ID?
DMVs close at 5pm and are unsually monday thru friday. The same time that most people work. Voting booths are open till 9-10pm. Take off work to get an ID to vote is not easy for those people.
Wat?
That explains why only unemployed people have drivers' licenses.
Clearly.
 
I've lived with it my whole life and it seems perfectly natural. Never thought twice about it.

I'm curious - anyone here ever been in a state or district that doesn't require voter ID?

How does the precinct or state verify that you haven't already voted?

How do they verify that you are voting in the right precinct?

How do they verify that someone else isn't voting in your stead?

 
I don't get the issue of not having an ID to vote? However, I do find it odd, that Republicans want to have smaller government and less regulations, yet in actions (like this) want to have regulations and more government involved?

Plus to be honest this hurts the Republicans just as much as a lot of senior's might not have valid state ID, if they are not driving. At least that has been my experience.

 
Poll should have another option, IMO.

I (and a good number of people I know) don't have a problem with voter ID in theory. That said, and you of all people can hopefully understand this, we don't trust that government will properly implement. If people end up worse off than they are how - little or no meaningful impact on voter fraud overall, not applying the law equally and wit equity for as many people as possible, have a methodology and system(s) that runs smoothly and is user friendly for all while making voting more fair for all and not being executed as a tool of election politics

If / when we think this out rather than just throw around inequitable laws being used in some cases almost solely to better a particular political party / disenfranchise certain groups at the expense of others, I'd be ok with Voter ID.

That said ok doesn't mean support. I'd also hope you could sympathize with my fear of moving toward a national ID and what that may mean down road with technology and the govts ability to, well, be govt. self perpetuation and all costs.

 
I've lived with it my whole life and it seems perfectly natural. Never thought twice about it.

I'm curious - anyone here ever been in a state or district that doesn't require voter ID?

How does the precinct or state verify that you haven't already voted?

How do they verify that you are voting in the right precinct?

How do they verify that someone else isn't voting in your stead?
No ID here on Long Island. We sign in and they match signatures. But it's an affluent area ( hi Otis!) overall but my area has a bit more economic diversity. My community has a pop. Around 30k, we have a few voting locations all with multiple voting stations and all very well staffed. Usually with coffee and donuts.

So my voting usually takes 3 min total, in and out, maybe 5. I once went at rush time and it took me a total of maybe 10-12 min. Maybe. Once. At peak time.

Here people pretty much know who you are because we have so many volunteers at small locations who live in your neighborhood.

Now, I'm sure areas with certain demographics (and ill wager those demos will be in less affluent areas) may not have these resources and options.

 
Bring up a national ID card and watch Republicans scream about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've lived with it my whole life and it seems perfectly natural. Never thought twice about it.

I'm curious - anyone here ever been in a state or district that doesn't require voter ID?

How does the precinct or state verify that you haven't already voted?

How do they verify that you are voting in the right precinct?

How do they verify that someone else isn't voting in your stead?
They don't verify anything.

 
I have never voted and have been shocked to hear you don't have to show ID.

I have to show ID to pick up an online order at a store.

From the sounds of it, seems there are political reasons to not have a need to show ID. Shocker. Just reinforces my feelings of hating politics.

 
Let's look at this way, when we stop allowing Super PAC's to manipulate the rules/loopholes about disclosing who is funneling money through them THEN you can ask for voter ID, and not some Nationalized RFID chip ladened big brother BS either. It strikes me as effing hilarious that people are putting more energy worrying about voter fraud than worrying about foriegn interests pumping billions of dark money into our political system. You're focusing on the wrong ####### things sheeple!!!
:shrug: we can't worry about both?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many people do we have in this country (legally I am talking about) that have not a single piece of valid id? I would bet that it is a much smaller number than most say and I would bet that someone who does not have the gumption to go and get an I'd card to make their entire life easier would also be a person who is not voting.

You can not legally drive without carrying your license. You can't but beer or cigarettes around here legally without proof of age. All these are OK but not needing one for a matter as important as voting is not is asinine.

 
Your poll choices may not be specific enough. I believe that everyone thinks that voters should identify themselves. The debate is about whether they may do so using some means other than a government-issued photo ID.
What are the other ways a person can prove who they are?
A person could show a facebook page, or a birth certificate, or a credit card, or a student ID card, or a Costco card, or a casino player's rewards card, or a bar membership card, or a phone bill, or some combination of stuff like that; or a person could sign a written statement under oath identifying himself; or he could make an oral affirmation. Of, if a person happens to be a celebrity such as Carolina Panthers WR Legedu Naanee, he could simply demand: "Don't you know who I am???"
:goodposting: I typically show a combination of tweets, old gas station receipts and Subway punch cards when I fly commercial. If I'm going international I usually have to step up my game and show my High School yearbook.

 
The Big Guy said:
How many people do we have in this country (legally I am talking about) that have not a single piece of valid id?
If by "valid" you mean the sort that would satisfy voter ID laws as they are typically proposed, it's something like 7%-9% of eligible voters, apparently. (It was a factual issue in the Wisconsin case, where the evidence showed it to be about 9%, but it's probably a bit lower in less rural states. I remember seeing a 7% estimate in another state.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Big Guy said:
How many people do we have in this country (legally I am talking about) that have not a single piece of valid id?
If by "valid" you mean the sort that would satisfy voter ID laws as they are typically proposed, it's something like 7%-9% of eligible voters, apparently. (It was a factual issue in the Wisconsin case, where the evidence showed it to be about 9%, but it's probably a bit lower in less rural states. I remember seeing a 7% estimate in another state.)
As important the gross number, IMO, would be the cross section of that 7-9% If they are somewhat representative of the electorate as a whole, no big deal.

If those 7-9% are largely of a limited portion of the population that creates inequity in the most important process and what should be the most revered process we have - to vote on who represents us.

Now, if you support your party over the ideals of our nation, equality and equity for all, that's your choice.

Let's just be honest, that's exactly what's happening here. It's not as if any amount of BS and avoidance of this crucial issue (If you care about freedom and democracy) can get over that reality.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top